Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:I don't know the answer to that question. It's more complex than that, as was the post you are responding to (which I probably didn't word right to begin with).

Actually it really isn't that complex at all - that question is the central issue. It is not Sharia which is being endorsed, but freedom. Freedom tends, on occasion, to have some unpleasant consequences, but those consequences are considered 'worth it' by many - take the Westboro situation for example. They are scum, as are (in my opinion) practitioners of Sharia - but if we curtail their freedom where does it stop? Where do you draw the line? Can you outlaw something simply because it's unpleasant? That's dodgy territory, as far as I'm concerned.

On the face of it, women in the UK are free from the coercion to submit to Sharia - of course it doesn't always work out like that, but the mechanisms are there to help women who are trapped in abusive situations. If they aren't able to make use of them... well, that's tough. I feel that we do enough for them in this country, in all honesty. Not only are a myriad of Equality and Diversity resources made available to ethnic minorities, but many immigrants receive taxpayer-funded english lessons. If after all that, a person is not able or willing to seek the help that they need, well then they aren't really our problem.

This is important because Sharia Courts can't contravene UK law, and women who don't wish to submit to them have help there if they need it. So where's the problem?

It's unpleasant? No gak. It's also a matter of choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
So you're ok with different groups in the UK not being bound by the UK legal system?

Wow! That sounds awful!


Good job that's not happening....

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Key word here, for me as someone concerned by this, is 'suddenly'. I don't imagine it's going to be sudden, but I am of the belief that now we have gone in binary terms from no sharia court to a sharia court, that court's expansion of portfolio and power is inevitable and that halting it or slowing it will be met at any point with further aggression and pressure from the lobbying groups of Islam (ie loudest = most extreme/hardline).

Either slowly or suddenly, it doesn't matter, expansion is not inevitable, it's impossible. You would need to completely rewrite the Arbitration Act, and completely redefine the idea of arbitration along the way in order to have a private court of arbitration rule along any other than private, civil matters.

Worrying that this Sharia court will suddenly aquire new powers and beginning ruling over people as a new legal body is as sensible as worrying Judge Judy will.

fething seriously, there are real issues with Sharia law and how it interacts with Family Law. Those problems are going to continue and there's never going to be an effective effort at seperating Sharia law from family law in the UK as long as people get distracted by these fantasy problems. We shouldn't be on page 9 of this thread and still explaining over and over again that a private court of arbitration cannot develop powers outside of those granted by the Arbitration Act.

Ok, pause for a moment and consider what you're berating me on here. That these courts are fairly innocuous and that I'm panicking over them. What have I been putting forward in the entire thread for pages? The rights of women under Sharia and their mistreatment. You are telling me not to worry and that I'm ignoring the real issues but then agreeing with me but suggesting that children are at risk of not being considered under Sharia.

I am not concerned with the notion that I will find myself under Sharia law any time soon. I am concerned, I have been concerned throughout the length of time I've been hearing about this, with the welfare of the minorities that might find themselves under the adjudication of these courts and our betrayal as a nation of the principles we espouse about equality and freedom if we facilitate and empower these courts.

As to the court never expanding it's portfolio, how the bloody hell do you know that it can't, that it won't? There is no precedent for this, the Jewish have never had the numbers, lobbyists, extremist movement, hostility or most importantly the inclination, to push the envelope further. Judaism is fairly guarded and certainly non-expansionist. Islam is expansionist, aggressively so.

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:A law's effectiveness is only as good as the population's willingness to enforce it.

Yes, that's an important principle when talking the unwillingness of a court to enforce laws on the books. In the context of your fear that private court of arbitration might somehow go and claim greater powers than those provided to it by the Arbitration Act it makes no sense.

Now, seriously, go and read and find out what Sharia law in the UK actually means, what it can and can't do. Go and learn something and stop wasting your time here posting little nonsense replies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:He refuses to accept that the Muslims who pushed for Sharia law in England are the kin to the same radicals who have been launching terrorist attacks. The majority of Muslim immigrants to England are Arab. The London Subway bombers were essentially refugees who had grown up England, but never developed love for the country and were willing to kill hundreds in the name of Allah. I have no idea why they would allow Sharia courts to open in the following years.

You keep phrasing this in terms of vague terror threats, as if setting up courts of arbitration are somehow tied to every other issue relating to Islam. The end result is that you end up with this kind of reflexive 'they must be stopped!' attitude, and whatever it is they must be stopped from doing is whatever they happen to be doing right now.

You try as hard as possible to consider the actual thing in question, and effectively do little more than keep repeating 'it's Islamic and there are bad Islamic things in the world'. It's an incredibly stupid way of looking at an issue.

Instead, stop and think for a second. Think about how, with or without private courts of arbitration, there will be Islamic terror, and women in Islamic communities will not be treated equally. Once those two obvious things have been properly acknowldeged, you realise how despite their existance, the presence of a private Islamic court of arbitration doesn't actually change them, one way or the other. Think about that, and then realise that your argument in this thread has made absolutely no sense in any way shape or form.

Accept that, and then go and read about the issue, think about it for a while, and try to form a viewpoint that makes some damn sense.

All this is true (as an aside, the UK has very large influxes of muslims from East Africa and the Afghan/Pakistan region, neither of which are 'Arabs', our Islamic makeup is fairly cosmopolitan).

However, with regards the woman's rights abuses within the UK by muslims (I'm not getting into the terror threat issue, I believe it's overblown by massive degrees), I fully accept the fact it will go on with or without the Sharia Court's existence or approval, what I am saying is that the Sharia court will enable it and that by the UK government approving and endorsing Sharia court's powers, the UK state is approving and endorsing these abuses. That is abhorrent to me.

sebster wrote:
First up, yes it's fear. Being concerned about a possible future event is a fear by any sensible definition. Fear, of course, can be perfectly sensible, if there's something to be fearful of.

Agreed, I am certainly fearful of the increasing powers and state support of this fascistic religion. It is a fear founded on what I am presented with on a daily basis from news around the world (from what I consider reasoned media sources), from the experiences recounted to me from abused muslim women I worked with and from the actual words of muslim leadership and the Qur'an.

sebster wrote:
Second up, stop playing these silly games to avoid debating the actual point - there is no way that a private court can expand from it's powers as defined in the Arbitration Act to start hearing criminal matters.
And it really is sad that you have so little interest in learning what the actual powers and limitations of Sharia courts in the UK are. I mean, we're all ignorant about something and that's okay, but to actually choose to reject more knowledge, to simply stop listening when someone describes how a thing actually works, because you like the incorrect version in your head... well, it's sad.
I'm not sure why you've done this. I suspect you really, really like championing gender and gay equality. This is a noble thing, but I wonder if the issue here is that you really like championing the cause more than anything else... so you feel good when rant against Sharia law in the UK, and ultimately feeling good ranting against something else is what it's all about.

Whilst there currently exist no way in law for the expansion of private court, again and again, precedent can still be set. The law is a mutable thing. You keep talking in absolutes that this 'can't happen' and I'm telling you straight that it could. Lobbying and gradual encroachment. The powers and the portfolio of the court, now the court exists, can be increased. There is no written constitution in the UK and all bets are off in terms of movement of the law.

Being concerned about how homosexuals or women may be judged in the Sharia court is perfectly legitimate concern, regardless of actual powers it holds, it is governed by religion, not state law, the religion calls for the death of homosexuals and states the second class treatment of women, this hardly rings endorsement to fair treatment for either group and again reiterates the unsuitability of the Sharia court's endorsement by law.

sebster wrote:
I said that Islamic terror and gender equality in Islam will not be affected whether Sharia courts exist in the UK or not. As such, campaigning against Sharia courts on the grounds that there is Islamic terror in the world is stupid.

Agreed. The terror issue being bandied about is diluting the issue of fairness in Sharia and the treatment of various groups by it.

Ulver wrote:

sebster wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yet and for the time being.
It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.

But there is no sensible series of steps to get from Sharia law as it exists in the UK to Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world. It exists as part of the UK's statute on arbitration, and it cannot suddenly expand outside of that to become anything like Sharia law as it exists in other countries. Being afraid of that Sharia becoming anything more than a court of arbitration for civil matters is being afraid of a thing that can't happen.

'Not going to be sudden' is an understatement - English Law dates back over 700 years to Magna Carta and forms the basis of many legal systems around the world; do you really think a bit of 'lobbying' is going to change that? Can you imagine how many instruments would have to be repealed for it to even be compatible, including the Murder Act if they were going to legalise honour killings.

Nice strawman argument. Noone in this thread has mentioned the legalisation of honour killings. What on earth are you talking about?!? What I have been talking about would include things like a sexual harassment case brought against an employer where both the employer and employee are muslim, the employer says 'lets take this before the Sharia court and the employee suddenly finds herself under pressure from her own family and peers to be judged by a religious court that doesn't even support her being IN work in the first place and will probably blame her for wearing mascara. If she insists on a state court, she insults her family's religion and may find herself subject to rejection and scorn.

Ulver wrote:
Tell you what, I live between Leeds and Bradford, so I'm probably better placed to observe the effects of Sharia in the UK than you are.

Your geographical location endorses your opinion how? I lived in Bristol up until a month ago, in an area with a very high Pakistani and very very high Somalian population. Does that make me more qualified than you to make a judgement?

Isn't this whole thing really just a glorified way of saying they are going to their priest to try and solve a problem before getting entangled in the state court system, something that people have been doing for a long time? It is voluntary so it isn't like a non-Muslim or Muslim that doesn't want to be part of it has to (in the UK). So a religious person consults their religious leaders on how their religion feels it is best to resolve a conflict, this happened long before Muslims were in the UK.

It's basically a council of elders, not so much a religious authority. It's also incredibly secretive and not open to scrutiny by the public. Which is why the mafia comparison is so apt.

This is a great deal of the reason why you see so many reports of brutal tribal justice in places with Sharia law. Sharia law IS tribal justice.

Ahtman wrote:Isn't this whole thing really just a glorified way of saying they are going to their priest to try and solve a problem before getting entangled in the state court system, something that people have been doing for a long time? It is voluntary so it isn't like a non-Muslim or Muslim that doesn't want to be part of it has to (in the UK). So a religious person consults their religious leaders on how their religion feels it is best to resolve a conflict, this happened long before Muslims were in the UK.

The issue is the government approving of it and legitimising it when we know it will act in a sexist and prejudicial way, things that our democracy is supposedly against. The disapproval is not only of the rulings the court will pass but of it's sanctification by the state.

Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

It is a court in the name of the religion, it is governed by the dictates of Islam. If a muslim woman feels she was wrongly treated by it and wishes to take it to a state court, she says to her peers, her family and the world that she is not satisfied by the judgement of the holy and wishes to go to infidels to seek fairness. I would not envy her that given Islam's already poor opinion of her gender's rights.

In fact, if anyone decides to go to a state court after they have recieved the judgement of the Sharia court, they are basically saying they want to go over God's head and ask the infidel for fairness.

It might lead to them getting a better deal, but what reception will it create for them in the Islamic community?

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

1: In the context of the community within, if the people who practice it believe it holds the full force of the law, then it effectively does-- IE, if the Elders believe that someone within the community needs to die for the sake of honor, they probably should get the hell out of there and seek government protection. In the greater context of the nation at large, its agreements are binding within the full force of civil law, such as marriage, child custody, property, and so on.

2: If they are not pressured into it by the community in which they live, yes. The problem is that Sharia courts are secretive courts of elders (who are all men-- fathers, uncles, cousins, grandfathers, etc of the victims and perpetrators) that rely on intimidation, familial pressure, and religious pressure to force people to accept their rulings, so going to court is a risky proposition for the person who wants to take action in a legal court as opposed to a Sharia court.

3: A court ruling is only as good as peoples' willingness to follow it.

So no, it doesn't actually have the full weight of law accorded to the states court system.

How come you never complained about the Jewish court systems that have been in place for quite some time? Even in Christian communities the communal pressure to solve problems in house existed as well. The protestations are ringing a little hollow.

Ahtman wrote:So no, it doesn't actually have the full weight of law accorded to the states court system.

How come you never complained about the Jewish court systems that have been in place for quite some time? Even in Christian communities the communal pressure to solve problems in house existed as well. The protestations are ringing a little hollow.

The Jewish courts, like the Jewish community in the British Isles, is not noted for it's hardline prejudices against women. British Jews have integrated and accepted western democratic practices. This is not the case in the Islamic community.

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

This is the UK. In the US they can be overturned but typically the courts follow the determinations of the arbitrations. Thats the whole point of arbitrations.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

This is the UK. In the US they can be overturned but typically the courts follow the determinations of the arbitrations. Thats the whole point of arbitrations.

I'm getting conflicting information here. Is it binding or not?

Its binding unless overturned.

Frazzled wrote:Its binding unless overturned.

Not in the UK - neither party has to abide by a ruling.

Ulver wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its binding unless overturned.

Not in the UK - neither party has to abide by a ruling.

Interesting, are these courts considered binding or nonbinding arbitration in UK courts?

Ulver wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its binding unless overturned.

Not in the UK - neither party has to abide by a ruling.

Civil Contempt - UK

Civil contempt

The Crown Prosecution Service wrote:
The distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt is of largely technical interest only now, as it is clear that, in either case, the contempt must be proved to the criminal standard: beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal contempt includes behaviour which is, albeit not in breach of any specific direction given by the court, intended to interfere with the administration of justice in the proceedings. Civil contempt takes the form of non-compliance with a court order or an undertaking given to the court in lieu of an order. Contempt by breach of an undertaking to the court is not unusual in civil cases but are rare in criminal cases. One example would be where a sentence was mitigated on the basis of an undertaking made by someone to repay money stolen by the defendant. Giving such an undertaking, if it misleads the judge, may amount to a contempt of court and possibly to a criminal offence such as perjury (where the undertaking is given on oath) or perverting the course of justice. Where the conduct may amount to being a distinct criminal offence (particularly where it could amount to perjury, where the defendant has the right to jury trial and there is a statutory requirement for corroborative evidence) it would normally be appropriate to refer the matter to be investigated by the police.

A breach of an undertaking would, of itself however, be a civil contempt even though the undertaking was made to a criminal court. Civil contempt is not a criminal offence, even if committed in connection with a criminal case: Cobra Golf Ltd v Rata [1998] Ch. 109. See also (Archbold 28-39).

Once such a breach has come to light, it is the responsibility of the court to summon the alleged contemner. However, because it is undesirable that the court should then act as prosecutor, and judge, it is appropriate for the CPS to assist by instructing an advocate to place the circumstances of the matter before the court and question the alleged contemner in case of any dispute. Such cases will be very rare but in the event of such an occurrence, steps should be taken to instruct the original advocate at the hearing. The responsibility for providing the CPS with the relevant transcripts and post trial documents lies with the Ministry of Justice.

Wait now its being said there's contempt involved. Thats definitely binding. Is it a binding arbitration standard or not?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:

sebster wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yet and for the time being.
It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.

But there is no sensible series of steps to get from Sharia law as it exists in the UK to Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world. It exists as part of the UK's statute on arbitration, and it cannot suddenly expand outside of that to become anything like Sharia law as it exists in other countries. Being afraid of that Sharia becoming anything more than a court of arbitration for civil matters is being afraid of a thing that can't happen.

'Not going to be sudden' is an understatement - English Law dates back over 700 years to Magna Carta and forms the basis of many legal systems around the world; do you really think a bit of 'lobbying' is going to change that? Can you imagine how many instruments would have to be repealed for it to even be compatible, including the Murder Act if they were going to legalise honour killings.

Nice strawman argument. Noone in this thread has mentioned the legalisation of honour killings. What on earth are you talking about?!? What I have been talking about would include things like a sexual harassment case brought against an employer where both the employer and employee are muslim, the employer says 'lets take this before the Sharia court and the employee suddenly finds herself under pressure from her own family and peers to be judged by a religious court that doesn't even support her being IN work in the first place and will probably blame her for wearing mascara. If she insists on a state court, she insults her family's religion and may find herself subject to rejection and scorn.

Melissia and Amaya keep going on about honour killings, and how Sharia Law in the UK is a bad thing because of honour killings. Or something. Hey, I didn't bring it up.

Why would the employer bring an action in a court? In what circumstances would they be the plaintiff? The employee would need to bring the action, and as sexual harrassment is illegal, that could be heard in a law court.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:
Tell you what, I live between Leeds and Bradford, so I'm probably better placed to observe the effects of Sharia in the UK than you are.

Your geographical location endorses your opinion how? I lived in Bristol up until a month ago, in an area with a very high Pakistani and very very high Somalian population. Does that make me more qualified than you to make a judgement?

My geographical location allows me a first-hand view of the subject of this thread: Sharia courts in the UK; living in Bristol may make you better placed to see the effects, however it does not in itself make you more qualified. I never claimed to have gained any qualification. It does make me better placed to view the effects in British and Muslim communities in the UK to those 3000 miles away who, incidentally, are not members of a British community themselves.

Unless this topic has deviated on to "Sharia in the modern world overall" in which case I'll address that instead

ULVER you might note MGS is a Brit who just left Haggisland for the US.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its binding unless overturned.

Not in the UK - neither party has to abide by a ruling.

Civil Contempt - UK

Civil contempt

The Crown Prosecution Service wrote:
The distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt is of largely technical interest only now, as it is clear that, in either case, the contempt must be proved to the criminal standard: beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal contempt includes behaviour which is, albeit not in breach of any specific direction given by the court, intended to interfere with the administration of justice in the proceedings. Civil contempt takes the form of non-compliance with a court order or an undertaking given to the court in lieu of an order. Contempt by breach of an undertaking to the court is not unusual in civil cases but are rare in criminal cases. One example would be where a sentence was mitigated on the basis of an undertaking made by someone to repay money stolen by the defendant. Giving such an undertaking, if it misleads the judge, may amount to a contempt of court and possibly to a criminal offence such as perjury (where the undertaking is given on oath) or perverting the course of justice. Where the conduct may amount to being a distinct criminal offence (particularly where it could amount to perjury, where the defendant has the right to jury trial and there is a statutory requirement for corroborative evidence) it would normally be appropriate to refer the matter to be investigated by the police.

A breach of an undertaking would, of itself however, be a civil contempt even though the undertaking was made to a criminal court. Civil contempt is not a criminal offence, even if committed in connection with a criminal case: Cobra Golf Ltd v Rata [1998] Ch. 109. See also (Archbold 28-39).

Once such a breach has come to light, it is the responsibility of the court to summon the alleged contemner. However, because it is undesirable that the court should then act as prosecutor, and judge, it is appropriate for the CPS to assist by instructing an advocate to place the circumstances of the matter before the court and question the alleged contemner in case of any dispute. Such cases will be very rare but in the event of such an occurrence, steps should be taken to instruct the original advocate at the hearing. The responsibility for providing the CPS with the relevant transcripts and post trial documents lies with the Ministry of Justice.

I don't know if I'm being thick, just not seeing it or don't understand the quote, but how is it relevant in this case?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:ULVER you might note MGS is a Brit who just left Haggisland for the US.

Yeah, I'm aware. I thought he was from Bristol though, not Scotland.

Its all Haggisland to me

Frazzled wrote:Its all Haggisland to me

Yeah, Frazzled does not care to know the differences between the 5 nations of the United Kingdom, that's ok, I guess his part of Mexico isn't that well educated on foreign geography.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its all Haggisland to me

Yeah, Frazzled does not care to know the differences between the 5 nations of the United Kingdom, that's ok, I guess his part of Mexico isn't that well educated on foreign geography.

Tejas cares not from whence the rum flows, only that it does.

Ulver wrote:
I don't know if I'm being thick, just not seeing it or don't understand the quote, but how is it relevant in this case?

It means if you fail to comply with the ruling of the civil court, you can be subject to punishment of the Crown court and in certain cases, face imprisonment.
If you don't follow the ruling of the Sharia court, as a civil court, in the UK, you can be served with a court order and sent a penal notice that if you do not comply, you can be imprisoned.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:
I don't know if I'm being thick, just not seeing it or don't understand the quote, but how is it relevant in this case?

It means if you fail to comply with the ruling of the civil court, you can be subject to punishment of the Crown court and in certain cases, face imprisonment.
If you don't follow the ruling of the Sharia court, as a civil court, in the UK, you can be served with a court order and sent a penal notice that if you do not comply, you can be imprisoned.

Does it count as an actual court or as arbitration MGS? There's a difference.

It's rulings will have the backing of the law of the land once it is recognised. That is the difference between a Sharia court and a bunch of blokes coming to a conclusion around a pub table over a few pints.

It is a court. A Civil Court, not a criminal court, but a court nonetheless.

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:
I don't know if I'm being thick, just not seeing it or don't understand the quote, but how is it relevant in this case?

It means if you fail to comply with the ruling of the civil court, you can be subject to punishment of the Crown court and in certain cases, face imprisonment.
If you don't follow the ruling of the Sharia court, as a civil court, in the UK, you can be served with a court order and sent a penal notice that if you do not comply, you can be imprisoned.

Does it count as an actual court or as arbitration MGS? There's a difference.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It's rulings will have the backing of the law of the land once it is recognised. That is the difference between a Sharia court and a bunch of blokes coming to a conclusion around a pub table over a few pints.

It is a court. A Civil Court, not a criminal court, but a court nonetheless.

Contrary to what I've said above and earlier in the thread, MGS is correct (although I'm going from a Daily Fail article, and I can't believe I just said that ) - according the Arbitration act rulings can be enforced by County and High courts. So I retract what I said before

It seems similar to what Australia does in regards to Aboriginals (not sure if this includes Torres Straights Islanders). Both parties can agree to a seperate arbitration process through tribal law. Like Sharia, this is a voluntary process and non-binding. Rulings such as death sentences or severe bodily maiming cannot be passed down, as they contradict Australian law. So the point of raised repeatedly by several posters here regarding honour killings and rulings that contradict British law is likely moot. Doubly so becuase Sharia only deals with civil areas whereas in Australia Tribal Arbitration can deal with both.

As to MGS's point regarding Sharia decisions being fully backed by the law this is incorrect. The decisions of the tribunal can only be upheld by law if they do not contradict British law, and can be challenged in a British court in due course. I can't believe that we're on page 11 and this point is still not getting across.

Emperors Faithful wrote:It seems similar to what Australia does in regards to Aboriginals (not sure if this includes Torres Straights Islanders). Both parties can agree to a seperate arbitration process through tribal law. Like Sharia, this is a voluntary process and non-binding. Rulings such as death sentences or severe bodily maiming cannot be passed down, as they contradict Australian law. So the point of raised repeatedly by several posters here regarding honour killings and rulings that contradict British law is likely moot. Doubly so becuase Sharia only deals with civil areas whereas in Australia Tribal Arbitration can deal with both.

As to MGS's point regarding Sharia decisions being fully backed by the law this is incorrect. The decisions of the tribunal can only be upheld by law if they do not contradict British law, and can be challenged in a British court in due course. I can't believe that we're on page 11 and this point is still not getting across.

First point, no, this is binding as a civil court ruling and subject to criminal court punishment if not adhered to or successfully appealed against.

Second point, of course we are talking about the rulings within the auspices of criminal law, the problem many of us are having is in regard the bias likely to be shown. I can't believe we got to page 11 and you still didn't get that.

shasolenzabi wrote:I wanted to ask if anyone was familiar with the manin New York who beheaded his wife, after a court order, he did so because of it being an "Honor killing" and was okay by sharia law? he found out the hard way that is not a good excuse or allowed by NY law. But this should be mentioned as it does relate to this discussion based on the points I brought up.

I am sorry, but anyone who wants to have a set of laws that allows them to commit murder just because they felt their honor was besmirched by perceived infidelity instead of "moving on" and dealing with it just because it is some part of their religion deserves to be locked away and have their head examined.

I'm guessing you didnt' read the thread? Honour killings and the like are matters of criminal law, and these Sharia courts cannot in any way make a ruling on a criminal matter.

They can make rulings on civil matters where all parties involved agree to have the matter resolved in a Sharia court. That's it. Everything else, such as your mention of honour killings, have nothing to do with Sharia courts as they exist in the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I fully understand what you people are trying to claim about "Sharia law in the UK". As the mod said, stop trying to claim that I don't.

If you understand they're fundamentally different organisations with entirely different levels of scope and authority, why do you keep forming arguments that pretend they're the same thing?

Oh yes, I understand what you're getting at when you use that term.

You've likely invented some other meaning, but I assure you no such thing was intended. I speak plainly, and as you can see from this thread if I think you're guilty of some failing or another I'll tell you straight up.

I also couldn't care less.

You could, hypothetically, care less about the border between France and Germany. But that border would still exist, and all that happen is that people would quickly see that your stated indifference to the subject would make your opinion on the subject irrelevant.

So yeah, you're free to not care about the difference between Sharia in the UK and Sharia in the greater Islamic world, but the difference is still there, it is a clear and obvious difference.

Because I firmly believe that there is no effective difference, as it is incredibly obvious that they are willing to enforce the FULL extent of Sharia law, not just what what is supposed to be enforced.

It isn't incredibly obvious. In fact, there's been no attempt to make a ruling on a criminal matter, so far from being incredibly obvious, it's actually nothing more than complete fantasy inside your head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:The thing is, I don't think anyone here is trying to claim that Sharia Law is a Good Thing, or something to be supported - merely that the amount of hysteria on the subject is largely unwarranted.

I think religious courts are an awful, medieval concept and should be stamped out because they are culturally harmful - that's my personal view on the matter. But I love my country, and being British I accept that people should have the freedom to make stupid religious choices, within reason. That's their right under UK law.

Do I think that Orthodox Jewish women should wear wigs outside of the home and have a separate downstairs bathroom for when they're menstruating? No, that's stupid. It's their right, though. Just as, no matter how much I disagree with it, it is the right of Muslims to use a separate system for civil arbitration, or Islamic banking services, should they choose to. I would rather that wasn't the case, because I think it harms proper integration, but it isn't a threat to British society at all.

They are a minority. They are here because we allow them to be. We could crush them all tomorrow if we decided to, but we are a civilised country, and that means tolerating some outside practices even if we do find those practices repellent on occasion.

Again, that's the price of freedom.

Yeah, well said. Really well said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:So you're ok with different groups in the UK not being bound by the UK legal system?

They are bound by the UK legal system. We're on page 11 and this has been explained at least a couple of times on every page. Please read, and accept the basic facts of the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ok, pause for a moment and consider what you're berating me on here.

Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression I was berating you. Maybe my tone from the argument I was having two other people in this thread slipped over. My apologies.

That these courts are fairly innocuous and that I'm panicking over them. What have I been putting forward in the entire thread for pages? The rights of women under Sharia and their mistreatment. You are telling me not to worry and that I'm ignoring the real issues but then agreeing with me but suggesting that children are at risk of not being considered under Sharia.

You were saying you were worried about these courts expanding in power. That is a thing that there is no need to panic over, it's a thing that can't happen. The courts are clearly limited by the Arbitration Act.

My point is that worrying about that distracts from concern and efforts to reform actual problematic areas with Sharia courts, and possibly make it harder to affect actual reform.

As to the court never expanding it's portfolio, how the bloody hell do you know that it can't, that it won't? There is no precedent for this, the Jewish have never had the numbers, lobbyists, extremist movement, hostility or most importantly the inclination, to push the envelope further. Judaism is fairly guarded and certainly non-expansionist. Islam is expansionist, aggressively so.

Because the courts only gained their power by claiming status under the pre-existing Arbitration Act. There is no movement to expand the powers under that act, and no will to do so.

Exactly what set of circumstances would result in the UK passing laws to amends its criminal codes and reform the entire structure of courts, to build an entirely new structure of courts to facilitate two sets of rules. How immense must a lobbying group be to completely reform the legal system in a country?

However, with regards the woman's rights abuses within the UK by muslims (I'm not getting into the terror threat issue, I believe it's overblown by massive degrees), I fully accept the fact it will go on with or without the Sharia Court's existence or approval, what I am saying is that the Sharia court will enable it and that by the UK government approving and endorsing Sharia court's powers, the UK state is approving and endorsing these abuses. That is abhorrent to me.

And I'd agree that an effort to restrict Sharia courts from ruling on matters of family law would a good thing. But that effort is made much less likely to succeed when it

Agreed, I am certainly fearful of the increasing powers and state support of this fascistic religion. It is a fear founded on what I am presented with on a daily basis from news around the world (from what I consider reasoned media sources), from the experiences recounted to me from abused muslim women I worked with and from the actual words of muslim leadership and the Qur'an.

Which is all fair enough. I'm guessing Melissia was trying to read some hint of Islamophobia into my post, for whatever reason, and therefore she railed against the word 'fear', as if it's somehow a bad thing to be afraid of realy threats.

Whilst there currently exist no way in law for the expansion of private court, again and again, precedent can still be set. The law is a mutable thing. You keep talking in absolutes that this 'can't happen' and I'm telling you straight that it could. Lobbying and gradual encroachment. The powers and the portfolio of the court, now the court exists, can be increased. There is no written constitution in the UK and all bets are off in terms of movement of the law.

The law is mutable because of the power of precedent in shaping the common law. But courts of arbitration do not set precedent.

And I still cannot see how Islamic groups could ever achieve the lobbying power necessary to completely reform UK law.

Being concerned about how homosexuals or women may be judged in the Sharia court is perfectly legitimate concern, regardless of actual powers it holds, it is governed by religion, not state law, the religion calls for the death of homosexuals and states the second class treatment of women, this hardly rings endorsement to fair treatment for either group and again reiterates the unsuitability of the Sharia court's endorsement by law.

But this has nothing to do with the actual powers of the court.

Judge Judy could also call for the death of someone who agreed to appear in her court (probably not for homosexuality, more likely for wearing a sideways or something) and it would have the exact same legal ramifications. None.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Does it have full force of law? If someone really doesn't like it can't they still take it to real court? I can't believe that a court couldn't still take the case or vacate a non-governmental court ruling. Sounds alarmist.

The rulings have the full force of the law. Like a legal decision granted in a lower court, these can be appealed to higher courts.

The rulings made in a court of arbitration have no power to set precedent.